Tree felling vids

Next time Rog, remind him to use the humbolt ;)

$$$

Bix, notice that we used a nearly 90 degree open face, which would have been difficult to achieve with a humboldt, and would have resulted in a higher backcut, so no net gain in board feet.

Due to the consequences of missing the lay, we took a good hour setting up the cuts. Even used two 6 foot poles as gunning sticks to confirm the aim. Even then, I thought we had it set up to land a foot closer to the shed than the fence. I set a cone out where we hoped it would land and was off by no more than two feet, in both directions.
 
Bix, notice that we used a nearly 90 degree open face, which would have been difficult to achieve with a humboldt, and would have resulted in a higher backcut, so no net gain in board feet.

Due to the consequences of missing the lay, we took a good hour setting up the cuts. Even used two 6 foot poles as gunning sticks to confirm the aim. Even then, I thought we had it set up to land a foot closer to the shed than the fence. I set a cone out where we hoped it would land and was off by no more than two feet, in both directions.

Speaking of cone. . .

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_9t3AHq4S1c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
No, from not having the facecut deducted from the log.
When you fell and buck some 1000 of trees each year, the small stuff makes a difference.
 
The butt should already be square from the humboldt.

But for the sake of discussion, doesn't cutting a humboldt frequently result in a stump which is a tad higher than the stump height resulting from a conventional cut, thus, no net difference in wood saved?

Or, if you argue that generally you can get the same stump height from either a humboldt or a conventional, then one can argue cutting a humboldt is more work/time spent cuz you are fighting the stump flare. That may be worthwhile when logging valuable trees vs just getting a tree down on a tree job.
 
I did the same thing on a bet and lost because of a technicality. The stub of the tree I fell was forked at the top, and both forks straddled the target I was supposed to hit. To boot, the stub had a side lean I had to correct for. Now, I figured I was right on target with the fall, but not the guy betting against me. He said, "You bet you could hit it!" Damn the technicalities anyway.
 
Seems pretty cheap of the other guy, Jerry, more like he should have doubled your winnings. It's like Robin Hood splitting his pervious arrow in the bullseye, and someone saying that technically he didn't hit the center.
 
I did the same thing on a bet and lost because of a technicality. The stub of the tree I fell was forked at the top, and both forks straddled the target I was supposed to hit. To boot, the stub had a side lean I had to correct for. Now, I figured I was right on target with the fall, but not the guy betting against me. He said, "You bet you could hit it!" Damn the technicalities anyway.

I won the dollar but he did challenge me to hit my own cone so, I guess I was had. He probably had a side bet that he could get me to destroy my own cone with a smile. : )
 
Back
Top